Degenerative spondylolisthesis

退行性腰椎滑脱
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:评估原始腰痛特异性Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)和椎管狭窄特异性ZürichClauditnaire(ZCQ)的反应性,并研究经手术治疗的腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)患者的ODI和ZCQ临床“成功”的临界值。
    方法:我们纳入了601例LSS患者(218例,383无退行性腰椎滑脱)来自NORDSTEN试验。结果测量包括ODI和ZCQ(症状严重程度和身体功能量表)以及三个替代反应参数:随访时的得分,从基线到两年随访的绝对和相对变化。效应大小和标准化反应平均值评估内部反应性。通过患者报告的全球感知效应量表(GPE)与ODI和ZCQ之间的Spearman等级相关性评估外部反应性。和接收机工作特性(ROC)。我们根据每个参数的GPE锚“完全恢复”/“大大改善”,评估了哪些截止值可以使正确分类的患者百分比最大化。
    结果:对于具有效应大小的所有三个指标,内部和外部响应性均较高,标准化的反应手段,ROC和相应的曲线下面积>0.8。与GPE反应的相关性对于绝对变化是中等的(>0.50),对于相对变化和随访评分是强的(>0.67)。30%ODI相对变化截止值正确地将81%的患者归类为“成功”,在根据GPE锚的精确截止范围内。
    结论:ODI和ZCQ在评估手术治疗的LSS患者的预后方面表现出相当的反应性。30%ODI阈值与NORDSTEN试验中的治疗“成功”一致。
    背景:ClinicalTrials.gov;NCT0200708310/12/2013,NCT0205137431/01/2014和NCT0356293620/06/2018。
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the responsiveness of the original low back pain specific Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the spinal stenosis specific Zürich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and to investigate cut-off values for clinical \"success\" for ODI and ZCQ in surgically treated patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).
    METHODS: We included 601 LSS patients (218 with, 383 without degenerative spondylolisthesis) from the NORDSTEN trials. Outcome measures included ODI and ZCQ (symptom severity and physical function scales) with three alternative response parameters: scores at follow-up, absolute and relative changes from baseline to two-year follow-up. Effect size and standardised response mean evaluated internal responsiveness. External responsiveness was assessed by the Spearman rank correlation between patient-reported global perceived effect scale (GPE) and ODI and ZCQ, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC). We evaluated which cut-off values could maximise the percentage of correctly classified patients according to the GPE-anchor \"completely recovered\" / \"much improved\" for each parameter.
    RESULTS: Internal and external responsiveness were high for all three indices with effect sizes, standardized response means, ROC and corresponding area under the curve > 0.8. Correlations with GPE responses were moderate (> 0.50) for absolute change and strong (> 0.67) for relative change and follow-up scores. The 30% ODI relative change cut-off correctly classified 81% of patients to \"success\", within a range of accurate cut-offs according to the GPE-anchor.
    CONCLUSIONS: ODI and ZCQ demonstrate comparable responsiveness in evaluating outcomes for surgically treated LSS patients. The 30% ODI threshold was consistent with treatment \"success\" in NORDSTEN trials.
    BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02007083 10/12/2013, NCT02051374 31/01/2014 and NCT03562936 20/06/2018.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:先前研究了使用微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MI-TLIF)治疗退行性腰椎疾病和伴随矢状位畸形的研究,并没有根据术前骨盆发生率(PI)-腰椎前凸(LL)不匹配对患者进行分层,这是轻度矢状畸形恶化的最早参数。因此,本研究的目的是确定在接受MI-TLIF治疗退行性腰椎滑脱(DS)的患者中,术前PI-LL不匹配对临床结局和矢状面平衡恢复的影响.
    方法:纳入2017年4月至2022年4月期间接受原发性1级MI-TLIF治疗DS且影像学随访≥6个月的连续成年患者。患者报告的结局指标(PROM)包括Oswestry残疾指数,视觉模拟量表(VAS),12项简式健康调查(SF-12),和术前患者报告结果测量信息系统,术后早期(<6个月),和术后晚期(≥6个月)时间点。还评估了PROM的最小临床重要差异(MCID)。射线照相参数包括PI,LL,骨盆倾斜(PT),和矢状垂直轴(SVA)。根据年龄调整后的对齐目标,根据术前PI-LL不匹配将患者分为平衡组和不平衡组。评估了射线照相参数和PROM的变化。
    结果:纳入80例患者(L4-582.5%,I级脊椎滑脱82.5%,不平衡58.8%)。平均临床和影像学随访时间分别为17.0和8.3个月,分别。术前平均PI-LL不平衡组为18.8°,平衡组为-3.3°。术前PI-LL不匹配的患者术前PT明显更差(26.2°vs16.4°,p<0.001)和SVA(53.2对9.0mm,p=0.001)与平衡患者相比。术前PI-LL不匹配的患者也表现出明显更差的PI-LL(16.0°vs0.54°,p<0.001),PT(25.9°vs18.7°,p<0.001),和SVA(49.4对22.8毫米,长期随访时p=0.013)。在不平衡的患者中没有观察到显着的影像学改善。除SF-12心理分量评分外,所有患者的所有PROM均有显着改善(p<0.05)。在术前PI-LL不匹配的患者中,VAS背部评分的MCID明显更高(85.7%vs65.5%,p=0.045)。
    结论:尽管1级MI-TLIF在术前PI-LL不匹配患者中不能恢复矢状面对齐,无论术前对齐或矫正程度如何,出现DS的患者在1级MI-TLIF后的PROM均有望得到显著改善.因此,在轻度矢状面失衡患者中获得良好的临床结局可能不需要直接解决失衡问题.
    OBJECTIVE: Prior studies investigating the use of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions and concomitant sagittal deformity have not stratified patients by preoperative pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch, which is the earliest parameter to deteriorate in mild sagittal deformity. Thus, the aim of the present study was to determine the impact of preoperative PI-LL mismatch on clinical outcomes and sagittal balance restoration among patients undergoing MI-TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS).
    METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing primary 1-level MI-TLIF between April 2017 and April 2022 for DS with ≥ 6 months radiographic follow-up were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System at preoperative, early postoperative (< 6 months), and late postoperative (≥ 6 months) time points. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMs was also evaluated. Radiographic parameters included PI, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Patients were categorized into balanced and unbalanced groups based on preoperative PI-LL mismatch according to age-adjusted alignment goals. Changes in radiographic parameters and PROMs were evaluated.
    RESULTS: Eighty patients were included (L4-5 82.5%, grade I spondylolisthesis 82.5%, unbalanced 58.8%). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-up were 17.0 and 8.3 months, respectively. The average preoperative PI-LL was 18.8° in the unbalanced group and -3.3° in the balanced group. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch had significantly worse preoperative PT (26.2° vs 16.4°, p < 0.001) and SVA (53.2 vs 9.0 mm, p = 0.001) compared with balanced patients. Patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch also showed significantly worse PI-LL (16.0° vs 0.54°, p < 0.001), PT (25.9° vs 18.7°, p < 0.001), and SVA (49.4 vs 22.8 mm, p = 0.013) at long-term follow-up. No significant radiographic improvement was observed among unbalanced patients. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all PROMs (p < 0.05) except for SF-12 mental component score. Achievement of MCID for VAS back score was significantly greater among patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch (85.7% vs 65.5%, p = 0.045).
    CONCLUSIONS: Although 1-level MI-TLIF did not restore sagittal alignment in patients with preoperative PI-LL mismatch, patients presenting with DS can expect significant improvement in PROMs following 1-level MI-TLIF regardless of preoperative alignment or extent of correction. Thus, attaining good clinical outcomes in patients with mild sagittal imbalance may not require addressing imbalance directly.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    退行性腰椎滑脱(DLS)病例的增加导致了融合手术的显着增加,这会导致大量的住院费用,并且通常需要长期使用阿片类药物来进行疼痛管理。最近的证据表明,无论是进行融合程序还是单独进行减压,单级别低等级DLS结果都具有可比性。引发了关于这些程序的成本效益的辩论,特别是随着微创技术的出现,降低了融合的发病率。这项研究旨在比较单纯减压和器械融合减压治疗单水平退行性腰椎滑脱的慢性阿片类药物利用和相关成本。
    使用PearlDiver数据库中的数据,进行了回顾性数据库分析.我们分析了2010年至2022年接受腰椎融合或减压的Medicare和Medicaid患者的记录。患者队列分为单独减压(DA)和器械融合减压(DIF)。长期使用阿片类药物,疼痛诊所就诊,比较两组90天的总费用,1年,术后2年.
    DIF是否提供了一种更具成本效益的方法来管理单水平DLS患者的长期阿片类药物使用。
    该研究显示,在90天和1年时,DA和DIF组之间的慢性阿片类药物使用和疼痛门诊就诊具有可比性。然而,与阿片类药物处方以及手术后护理相关的总费用在90天时DIF组明显更高(p<0.05),1年(p<0.05),与DA组相比,术后2年(p<0.05)。
    这项研究强调了与DIF相关的更高成本,尽管与1年间隔的DA和DIF相比,症状改善相当。DA成为一种财务上更有利的选择,挑战融合成本抵消收益的概念。虽然需要进一步调查以了解潜在的成本动因并优化结果,我们的研究结果强调了在单水平DLS管理中整合临床和经济因素的必要性.
    UNASSIGNED: The rise in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) cases has led to a significant increase in fusion surgeries, which incur substantial hospitalization costs and often necessitate chronic opioid use for pain management. Recent evidence suggests that single-level low-grade DLS outcomes are comparable whether a fusion procedure or decompression alone is performed, sparking debate over the cost-effectiveness of these procedures, particularly with the advent of minimally invasive techniques reducing the morbidity of fusion. This study aims to compare chronic opioid utilization and associated costs between decompression alone and decompression with instrumented fusion for single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    UNASSIGNED: Using data from the PearlDiver database, a retrospective database analysis was conducted. We analyzed records of Medicare and Medicaid patients undergoing lumbar fusion or decompression from 2010 to 2022. Patient cohorts were divided into decompression alone (DA) and decompression with instrumented fusion (DIF). Chronic opioid use, pain clinic visits, and total costs were compared between the two groups at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years post-surgery.
    UNASSIGNED: Does DIF offer a more cost-effective approach to managing DLS in terms of chronic opioid use in single-level DLS patients.
    UNASSIGNED: The study revealed comparable chronic opioid use and pain clinic visits between DA and DIF groups at 90 days and 1 year. However, total costs associated with opioid prescriptions as well as surgical aftercare were significantly higher in the DIF group at 90 days (p < 0.05), 1 year (p < 0.05), and 2 years (p < 0.05) post-surgery compared to the DA group.
    UNASSIGNED: This study highlights the higher costs associated with DIF up to 2 years post-surgery despite comparable symptom improvement when compared to DA and DIF at the 1-year interval. DA emerges as a more financially favorable option, challenging the notion of fusion\'s cost-offsetting benefits. While further investigation is needed to understand underlying cost drivers and optimize outcomes, our findings emphasize the necessity of integrating clinical and economic factors in the management of single-level DLS.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:比较不同年龄组单纯减压和L4-5DLS融合的结果(<70岁,≥70岁)。
    方法:这项回顾性队列研究包括接受L4-5DLS微创减压或融合术并至少随访1年的患者。结果指标为:(1)患者报告的结果指标(PROMs)(Oswestry残疾指数,ODI;视觉模拟缩放背部和腿部,VAS;12项简表调查实物成分评分,SF-12PCS),(2)最小临床重要差异(MCID),(3)患者可接受的症状状态(PASS),(4)响应全球评级变更(GRC)尺度,(5)并发症发生率。在<70岁和≥70岁的队列中,分别比较减压和融合组的结局。
    结果:纳入233例患者,其中52%<70岁。与融合后相比,<70岁的患者在SF-12PCS中表现出无显着的改善,并且在减压后VAS的MCID成功率显着降低。对年龄≥70岁队列的分析表明,减压组和融合组在PROM的改善方面没有显着差异,MCID/PASS成就率,以及对GRC的回应。接受融合的≥70岁患者的院内并发症发生率明显较高。无论手术类型如何分析,<70岁和≥70岁的队列显示,PROM显著改善,但无显著差异.
    结论:仅接受减压的患者<70岁,与融合相比,其躯体功能没有显著改善,背痛的MCID成功率也显著降低。≥70岁的患者在单纯减压和融合之间的结果没有差异。
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of decompression alone and fusion for L4-5 DLS in different age cohorts (< 70 years, ≥ 70 years).
    METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent minimally invasive decompression or fusion for L4-5 DLS and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Visual Analog Scale back and leg, VAS; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS), (2) minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (3) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), (4) response on the global rating change (GRC) scale, and (5) complication rates. The decompression and fusion groups were compared for outcomes separately in the < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts.
    RESULTS: 233 patients were included, out of which 52% were < 70 years. Patients < 70 years showed non-significant improvement in SF-12 PCS and significantly lower MCID achievement rates for VAS back after decompression compared to fusion. Analysis of the ≥ 70-year age cohort showed no significant differences between the decompression and fusion groups in the improvement in PROMs, MCID/PASS achievement rates, and responses on GRC. Patients ≥ 70 years undergoing fusion had significantly higher in-hospital complication rates. When analyzed irrespective of the surgery type, both < 70-year and ≥ 70-year age cohorts showed significant improvement in PROMs with no significant difference.
    CONCLUSIONS: Patients < 70 years undergoing decompression alone did not show significant improvement in physical function and had significantly less MCID achievement rate for back pain compared to fusion. Patients ≥ 70 years showed no difference in outcomes between decompression alone and fusion.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:比较退行性腰椎滑脱(DS)患者的椎旁肌形态,峡部裂性脊椎滑脱(IS),和健康的个体。
    方法:选择37对DS患者,采用倾向评分与IS患者匹配,虽然37名健康个体的年龄相匹配,性别,选择BMI作为对照。相对横截面积(rCSA),测量椎旁肌肉的相对功能横截面积(rfCSA),计算脂肪浸润程度(FI)。基于职业差异,患者还分为工人和农民组,对它们进行了相同的测量。
    结果:在L3/L4级别,DS和IS组的多裂(MF)FI高于对照组,IS组的竖脊肌(ES)rfCSA高于DS组和对照组。在L4/L5级别,DS和IS组的MFrfCSA小于对照组;IS组的ESrfCSA高于DS和对照组。在L5/S1级别,DS和IS组的MFrfCSA小于对照组;IS组的ESrfCSA高于DS组。在L3/L4、L4/L5级别,工人组的MFrfCSA高于农民组(p<0.05)。
    结论:DS患者椎旁肌的形态学改变主要是MF的选择性萎缩,而在IS患者中,椎旁肌的形态变化显示MF的选择性萎缩,并伴有ES的代偿性肥大。外科医生在制定适当的手术方案时,应考虑不同类型腰椎滑脱症之间椎旁肌的形态差异。
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the morphometry of paraspinal muscles in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS), and healthy individuals.
    METHODS: Thirty-seven pairs of DS patients were selected using propensity score matching with IS patients, while 37 healthy individuals matched for age, sex, and BMI were selected as controls. The relative cross-sectional area (rCSA), and relative functional cross-sectional area (rfCSA) of paraspinal muscles were measured, and the degree of fatty infiltration (FI) was calculated. Based on occupational differences, the patients were also divided into worker and farmer groups, and the same measurements were taken on them.
    RESULTS: At the L3/L4 level, the multifidus (MF) FI was greater in the DS and IS groups than in the control group, the erector spinae (ES) rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS and control groups. At the L4/L5 level, MF rfCSA was smaller in the DS and IS groups than in the control group; ES rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS and control groups. At the L5/S1 level, MF rfCSA was smaller in the DS and IS groups than in the control group; ES rfCSA was higher in the IS group than in the DS group. At the L3/L4, L4/L5 level, MF rfCSA were higher in the worker group than in the farmer group (p < 0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: The morphological changes in paraspinal muscles in patients with DS were dominated by selective atrophy of the MF, while in patients with IS, the morphological changes in paraspinal muscle showed selective atrophy of the MF accompanied by compensatory hypertrophy of the ES. The surgeon should consider the morphological differences in paraspinal muscle between different types of lumbar spondylolisthesis when establishing the appropriate surgical program.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:在本研究中,作者旨在确定显微内镜下椎板切开术(MEL)治疗腰椎管狭窄症(LSS)伴退行性腰椎滑脱(DS)的中远期结局,并确定不良中远期结局的术前预测因素.
    方法:作者回顾性回顾了274例因症状性LSS而接受脊髓MEL的患者的医疗记录。术后随访时间最短为5年。根据DS将患者分为两组:有DS的患者(DS组)和无DS的患者(DS-组)。对患者进行基于性别的倾向评分匹配,年龄,BMI,手术段,术前腿部疼痛视觉模拟量表评分。在手术后1年和>5年评估临床结果。
    结果:就Oswestry残疾指数(p=0.498)而言,在最终随访(平均7.8年)时,在DS+和DS-组之间,MEL治疗LSS的手术结果没有显着差异。满意度(p=0.913),和再手术率(p=0.154)。在多变量分析中,女性(标准β-0.260),在向前弯曲位置滑移角>5°的患者(标准β-0.313),动态进展为Meyerding等级(标准β-0.325)的患者长期结局不良的风险较高.
    结论:MEL在DS患者中可能具有良好的长期效果,而没有动态不稳定性。动态不稳定的女性可能需要额外的融合手术,大约25%的病例持续≥5年。
    OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors aimed to determine the mid- to long-term outcomes of microendoscopic laminotomy (MEL) for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and identify preoperative predictors of poor mid- to long-term outcomes.
    METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 274 patients who underwent spinal MEL for symptomatic LSS. The minimum postoperative follow-up duration was 5 years. Patients were classified into two groups according to DS: those with DS (the DS+ group) and those without DS (the DS- group). The patients were subjected to propensity score matching based on sex, age, BMI, surgical segments, and preoperative leg pain visual analog scale scores. Clinical outcomes were evaluated 1 year and > 5 years after surgery.
    RESULTS: Surgical outcomes of MEL for LSS were not significantly different between the DS+ and DS- groups at the final follow-up (mean 7.8 years) in terms of Oswestry Disability Index (p = 0.498), satisfaction (p = 0.913), and reoperation rate (p = 0.154). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (standard β -0.260), patients with slip angle > 5° in the forward bending position (standard β -0.313), and those with dynamic progression of Meyerding grade (standard β -0.325) were at a high risk of poor long-term outcomes.
    CONCLUSIONS: MEL may have good long-term results in patients with DS without dynamic instability. Women with dynamic instability may require additional fusion surgery in approximately 25% of cases for a period of ≥ 5 years.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究旨在评估接受腰椎融合手术(LFS)的退行性腰椎滑脱(DLS)患者的术前(术前)影像学特征和特定的手术干预措施,重点分析节段性腰椎前凸(SLL)术后恢复的预测因素。
    方法:在单中心进行的回顾性审查确定了在2016年至2022年期间连续接受LFS的单水平DLS患者。射线照相测量包括盘角(DA),SLL,腰椎前凸(LL),前/后椎间盘高度(ADH/PDH),脊椎滑脱百分比(SP),椎间盘退变,和椎旁肌肉质量。手术相关的措施包括笼子的位置,螺钉插入深度,腰椎滑脱减少率,和椎间盘高度恢复率。SLL≥4°的变化表明节段性腰椎前凸度(ISLL)增加,和未增加的节段性腰椎前凸度(UISLL)<4°。倾向评分匹配用于ISLL和UISLL患者之间基于年龄的1:1匹配,性别,身体质量指数,吸烟状况,和骨质疏松症的情况。
    结果:共纳入192例患者,平均随访20.9个月。与UISLL患者相比,ISLL患者的术前DA显着降低(6.78°vs.11.84°),SLL(10.73°vs.18.24°),LL(42.59°vs.45.75°),和ADH(10.09毫米vs.12.21mm)(全部,P<0.05)。ISLL患者倾向于更严重的椎间盘退变(P=0.047)和更高的SP(21.30%vs.19.39%,P=0.019)。ISLL患者的笼子位置更靠前(67.00%vs.60.08%,P=0.000),腰椎滑脱的减少更广泛(-73.70%vs.-56.16%,P=0.000)和更高的ADH恢复(33.34%vs.8.11%,P=0.000)。多因素回归显示术前SLL较低(OR0.750,P=0.000),更多的前笼位置(OR1.269,P=0.000),腰椎滑脱减少率(OR0.965,P=0.000)显着影响SLL的恢复。
    结论:术前SLL,保持架位置,腰椎滑脱减少率被确定为DLSLFS后SLL恢复的重要预测因子。建议外科医生根据术前SLL精心选择患者,并努力将笼子定位在更靠前的位置,同时最大程度地减少脊椎滑脱,以最大程度地恢复SLL。
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate preoperative (pre-op) radiographic characteristics and specific surgical interventions in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) who underwent lumbar fusion surgery (LFS), with a focus on analyzing predictors of postoperative restoration of segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL).
    METHODS: A retrospective review at a single center identified consecutive single-level DLS patients who underwent LFS between 2016 and 2022. Radiographic measures included disc angle (DA), SLL, lumbar lordosis (LL), anterior/posterior disc height (ADH/PDH), spondylolisthesis percentage (SP), intervertebral disc degeneration, and paraspinal muscle quality. Surgery-related measures included cage position, screw insertion depth, spondylolisthesis reduction rate, and disc height restoration rate. A change in SLL ≥ 4° indicated increased segmental lumbar lordosis (ISLL), and unincreased segmental lumbar lordosis (UISLL) < 4°. Propensity score matching was employed for a 1:1 match between ISLL and UISLL patients based on age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, and osteoporosis condition.
    RESULTS: A total of 192 patients with an average follow-up of 20.9 months were enrolled. Compared to UISLL patients, ISLL patients had significantly lower pre-op DA (6.78° vs. 11.84°), SLL (10.73° vs. 18.24°), LL (42.59° vs. 45.75°), and ADH (10.09 mm vs. 12.21 mm) (all, P < 0.05). ISLL patients were predisposed to more severe intervertebral disc degeneration (P = 0.047) and higher SP (21.30% vs. 19.39%, P = 0.019). The cage was positioned more anteriorly in ISLL patients (67.00% vs. 60.08%, P = 0.000), with more extensive reduction of spondylolisthesis (- 73.70% vs. - 56.16%, P = 0.000) and higher restoration of ADH (33.34% vs. 8.11%, P = 0.000). Multivariate regression showed that lower pre-op SLL (OR 0.750, P = 0.000), more anterior cage position (OR 1.269, P = 0.000), and a greater spondylolisthesis reduction rate (OR 0.965, P = 0.000) significantly impacted SLL restoration.
    CONCLUSIONS: Pre-op SLL, cage position, and spondylolisthesis reduction rate were identified as significant predictors of SLL restoration after LFS for DLS. Surgeons are advised to meticulously select patients based on pre-op SLL and strive to position the cage more anteriorly while minimizing spondylolisthesis to maximize SLL restoration.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:研究表明,开放融合术与相邻层椎板切除术后,相邻节段疾病(ASD)的风险增加,比率从16-47%不等,可能与后韧带复合体的破坏有关。微创手术(MIS)方法可以提供更持久的结果。我们报告了同时进行MIS经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(MISTLIF)和相邻层椎板切除术治疗低度腰椎滑脱症和相邻椎管狭窄患者的机构结果。
    方法:对2007-2022年在一家机构接受MISTLIF行相邻水平椎板切除术治疗I-II级腰椎滑脱伴相邻狭窄的患者进行了回顾性分析。
    结果:34例患者符合标准,平均随访23.1个月。总的来说,融合了37个水平,进行了45个层切除术。21例患者接受了单级椎板切除术和单级MISTLIF,10例患者接受了两级椎板切除术和单级MISTLIF,两名患者接受了单级椎板切除术和两级MISTLIF,一名患者接受了两级椎板切除术和两级MISTLIF。三名(8.8%)患者经历了临床上重要的术后ASD,需要再次手术。其他三名患者因其他原因需要再次手术。多因素logistic回归未显示ASD的发展与手术协变量之间有任何关联。
    结论:MISTLIF与相邻层椎板切除术显示出良好的安全性,术后ASD的发生率低于公开发表的开放融合后的发生率,并且与MISTLIF单独发表的ASD的发生率相当。未来的前瞻性研究可能会更好地阐明与MISTLIF一起进行的相邻层板切除术的耐久性,但回顾性数据表明它是安全和持久的。
    Studies have demonstrated increased risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD) after open fusion with adjacent-level laminectomy, with rates ranging from 16%-47%, potentially related to disruption of the posterior ligamentous complex. Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches may offer a more durable result. We report institutional outcomes of simultaneous MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MISTLIF) and adjacent-level laminectomy for patients with low grade spondylolisthesis and ASD.
    Retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent MISTLIF with adjacent level laminectomy to treat grade I-II spondylolisthesis with adjacent stenosis at a single institution from 2007-2022.
    A total of 34 patients met criteria, with mean follow-up of 23.1 months. In total, 37 levels were fused and 45 laminectomies performed. In this group, 21 patients received a single level laminectomy and single-level MISTLIF, 10 patients received a 2-level laminectomy and single-level MISTLIF, 2 patients received a single-level laminectomy and 2-level MISTLIF, and 1 patient received a 2-level laminectomy and 2-level MISTLIF. Three (8.8%) patients experienced clinically significant postoperative ASD requiring reoperation. Three other patients required reoperation for other reasons. Multiple logistic regression did not reveal any association between development of ASD and surgical covariates.
    MISTLIF with adjacent-level laminectomy demonstrated a favorable safety profile with rates of postoperative ASD lower than published rates after open fusion and on par with the published rates of ASD from MISTLIF alone. Future prospective studies may better elucidate the durability of adjacent-level laminectomies when performed alongside MISTLIF, but retrospective data suggests it is safe and durable.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景与目的Meyerding分类系统仍然是最常见的基于椎体平移百分比的脊椎滑脱分类系统。然而,大多数患有退行性疾病的患者属于1级,限制了其在这一部分患者中的应用.临床和影像学退行性腰椎滑脱症(CARDS)分类系统提供了一个简单的影像学框架,用于通过整合椎间盘高度对退行性腰椎滑脱症(DLS)患者进行分类。后凸畸形,和前翻译。这项研究的目的是评估临床特征,治疗,不同CARDS组的患者接受一或两级腰椎融合术治疗DLS,结果各不相同。方法将患者分为以下四个CARDS组之一:A型:晚期椎间盘间隙塌陷,无脊柱后凸的证据;B型:平移小于5.0mm的部分保留的椎间盘间隙;C型:平移大于5.0mm的部分保留的椎间盘间隙;和D型:后凸对准。进行单变量分析以比较人口统计学,症状,临床结果,和患者报告的结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)的身体(PH)和心理健康(MH)评分。结果91例患者纳入研究。根据卡片分类,有三名(3%)A型患者,25(28%)B型,58(64%)C型,和五种(5%)类型D。基线人口统计学无显着差异,症状持续时间,或观察各组的PROMIS评分。体内利用率各不相同,CARDSC(n=11)患者的19%至CARDSB(n=15)和D(n=3)患者的60%(p=0.005)。30天的临床结果各组相似。平均随访8.9个月,两组患者的PROMISPH和MH评分改善情况以及临床显著改善率相似.结论根据我们的发现,当使用CARDS分类系统进行分层时,接受DLS腰椎融合术的患者具有相似的人口统计学和临床特征,并且具有相似的临床和患者报告结局.后外侧融合(PLF)可有效用于DLS的各种影像学表现。需要进一步的研究来评估CARDS在术前计划中的实用性。
    Background and objective The Meyerding classification system remains the most common classification system for spondylolisthesis based on the percentages of vertebral translation. However, the majority of patients with degenerative disease fall into Grade 1, limiting its utility in this subset of patients. The Clinical and Radiographic Degenerative Spondylolisthesis (CARDS) classification system provides a simple radiographic framework for classifying degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients by incorporating disc height, kyphosis, and anterior translation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes vary across different CARDS groups in patients undergoing one- or two-level lumbar fusion for DLS. Methods The patients were classified into one of the following four CARDS groups - Type A: advanced disc space collapse with no evidence of kyphosis; Type B: partially preserved disc space with less than 5.0 mm of translation; Type C: partially preserved disc space with greater than 5.0 mm of translation; and Type D: kyphotic alignment. Univariate analyses were performed to compare demographics, symptoms, clinical outcomes, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical (PH) and mental health (MH) scores across groups. Results Ninety-one patients were included in the study. Based on the CARDS classification, there were three (3%) Type A patients, 25 (28%) Type B, 58 (64%) Type C, and five (5%) Type D. No significant differences in baseline demographics, symptom duration, or PROMIS scores were observed across groups. Interbody utilization varied, ranging from 19% in CARDS C (n=11) to 60% in CARDS B (n=15) and D (n=3) patients (p=0.005). Thirty-day clinical outcomes were similar across groups. At an average follow-up of 8.9 months, improvements in PROMIS PH and MH scores and rates of clinically significant improvement were similar across groups. Conclusions Based on our findings, patients undergoing lumbar fusion for DLS present with similar demographic and clinical characteristics and experience similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes when stratified using the CARDS classification system. Posterolateral fusion (PLF) can be effective for various radiographic presentations of DLS. Further research is warranted to assess the utility of CARDS in preoperative planning.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:临床指南,与文献一致发展,通常用于指导外科医生的临床决策。医学领域的大型语言模型和人工智能(AI)的最新进展具有令人兴奋的潜力。OpenAI的生成AI模型,被称为ChatGPT,可以快速综合信息并产生基于医学文献的反应,这可能被证明是脊柱护理临床决策的有用工具。目前的文献尚未研究ChatGPT协助退行性腰椎滑脱的临床决策的能力。
    目的:该研究旨在比较ChatGPT与北美脊柱学会(NASS)关于退行性脊椎滑脱的诊断和治疗的临床指南的建议的一致性,并在最新文献的背景下评估ChatGPT的准确性。
    方法:ChatGPT-3.5和4.0提示了NASS关于退行性脊椎滑脱诊断和治疗临床指南的问题,并将其建议分级为“一致”或“不一致”。当ChatGPT产生的建议准确地再现了NASS建议中提出的所有主要观点时,反应被认为是“一致的”。任何等级为“不一致”的答复都被进一步分为两个子类别:“不足”或“结论过高,\“提供对评分基本原理的进一步见解。使用卡方检验比较GPT-3.5和4.0之间的反应。
    结果:ChatGPT-3.5回答了符合NASS指南的28个临床问题中的13个(46.4%)。分类分类如下:定义和自然史(1/1,100%),诊断和成像(1/4,25%),医学干预和手术治疗的结果措施(0/1,0%),医疗和介入治疗(4/6,66.7%),手术治疗(7/14,50%),和脊柱护理的价值(0/2,0%)。当NASS表明有足够的证据提供明确的建议时,ChatGPT-3.5在66.7%的时间内产生一致反应(6/9)。然而,当被问及NASS没有提供明确建议的临床问题时,ChatGPT-3.5的一致性降至36.8%(7/19)。对ChatGPT-3.5与指南不一致的进一步细分显示,其绝大多数不准确的建议是由于它们“过于结论性”(12/15,80%),而不是“不足”(3/15,20%)。ChatGPT-4.0回答了与NASS指南一致的28个问题中的19个(67.9%)(P=0.177)。当NASS表明有足够的证据提供明确的建议时,ChatGPT-4.0在66.7%的时间内产生一致反应(6/9)。当询问NASS未提供明确建议的临床问题时,ChatGPT-4.0的一致性保持在68.4%(13/19,P=0.104)。
    结论:这项研究揭示了临床环境中LLM应用的双重性:在某些情况下的准确性和实用性与在其他情况下的不准确性和风险之一。ChatGPT与NASS提供的大多数临床问题一致。然而,对于NASS没有提供最佳实践的问题,ChatGPT产生的答案要么过于笼统,要么与文献不一致,甚至捏造的数据/引用。因此,临床医生在尝试咨询ChatGPT临床建议时应格外谨慎,在最近的文献中注意确保其可靠性。
    BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines, developed in concordance with the literature, are often used to guide surgeons\' clinical decision making. Recent advancements of large language models and artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical field come with exciting potential. OpenAI\'s generative AI model, known as ChatGPT, can quickly synthesize information and generate responses grounded in medical literature, which may prove to be a useful tool in clinical decision-making for spine care. The current literature has yet to investigate the ability of ChatGPT to assist clinical decision making with regard to degenerative spondylolisthesis.
    OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare ChatGPT\'s concordance with the recommendations set forth by The North American Spine Society (NASS) Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and assess ChatGPT\'s accuracy within the context of the most recent literature.
    METHODS: ChatGPT-3.5 and 4.0 was prompted with questions from the NASS Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Spondylolisthesis and graded its recommendations as \"concordant\" or \"nonconcordant\" relative to those put forth by NASS. A response was considered \"concordant\" when ChatGPT generated a recommendation that accurately reproduced all major points made in the NASS recommendation. Any responses with a grading of \"nonconcordant\" were further stratified into two subcategories: \"Insufficient\" or \"Over-conclusive,\" to provide further insight into grading rationale. Responses between GPT-3.5 and 4.0 were compared using Chi-squared tests.
    RESULTS: ChatGPT-3.5 answered 13 of NASS\'s 28 total clinical questions in concordance with NASS\'s guidelines (46.4%). Categorical breakdown is as follows: Definitions and Natural History (1/1, 100%), Diagnosis and Imaging (1/4, 25%), Outcome Measures for Medical Intervention and Surgical Treatment (0/1, 0%), Medical and Interventional Treatment (4/6, 66.7%), Surgical Treatment (7/14, 50%), and Value of Spine Care (0/2, 0%). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-3.5 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). However, ChatGPT-3.5\'s concordance dropped to 36.8% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (7/19). A further breakdown of ChatGPT-3.5\'s nonconcordance with the guidelines revealed that a vast majority of its inaccurate recommendations were due to them being \"over-conclusive\" (12/15, 80%), rather than \"insufficient\" (3/15, 20%). ChatGPT-4.0 answered 19 (67.9%) of the 28 total questions in concordance with NASS guidelines (P = 0.177). When NASS indicated there was sufficient evidence to offer a clear recommendation, ChatGPT-4.0 generated a concordant response 66.7% of the time (6/9). ChatGPT-4.0\'s concordance held up at 68.4% when asked clinical questions that NASS did not provide a clear recommendation on (13/19, P = 0.104).
    CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds light on the duality of LLM applications within clinical settings: one of accuracy and utility in some contexts versus inaccuracy and risk in others. ChatGPT was concordant for most clinical questions NASS offered recommendations for. However, for questions NASS did not offer best practices, ChatGPT generated answers that were either too general or inconsistent with the literature, and even fabricated data/citations. Thus, clinicians should exercise extreme caution when attempting to consult ChatGPT for clinical recommendations, taking care to ensure its reliability within the context of recent literature.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号